The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.

You're not making me want to lynch you less by quoting Taylor Swift.

Epignosis wrote:
Boogs wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Boogs wrote:Bad owl, bad bad owl. I need to go opposite of everything I think for the rest of the game lol.
25 on each property.
75 on vote
Bad kitty. Bad bad kitty. I need to vote the same way I did yesterday.
K have fun with that while the rest of us get the real baddies.
And who are they?

Fingersplints, you sly-boots. I'm going to use my rob to rob you.
$75 for the rob

Turnip Head wrote:I'm going to vote for whoever has the most votes at the end of the lynch. But Boogs is one of my top suspects.

That's some fine baddie hunting there. My hat's off to you.

Turnip Head wrote:I think Boogs used a secret vote (gained from the aforementioned power creation contest) to vote for BWT and got $200 added to his bid to win Electric Conpany. I think Boogs is Water Works.

You should vote for him, then.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm not changing the subject, I'm confronting your accusations head on. While continuing my own, more fruitful search for baddies.

You're not NOW, because you can't now, because I called you on it. Hunt all you want. Maybe you'll find a railroad, which would be lovely.

EBWOP: change the SUBJECT

Turnip Head wrote:Llama your only reason for thinking that I'm BWT's partner is because I voted for him last. You are ignoring all other evidence.

That's not my only reason at all. My main reason is your eagerness to change the substance.

Turnip Head wrote: You're going to have to point out how what you're doing is different from what I'm doing, and why me doing it makes me bad.

I don't have to do any such thing.

Turnip Head wrote: Just because "voting late is consistent with what a teammate would do" does not mean that everyone who voted on the tail end of BWT's lynch was his teammate. That can't possibly be true. You're making a big logical fallacy here Llama and that doesn't seem like your usual style.

I never asserted that all the late voters were BWT's teammate, Captain Straw Man. I am asserting that one of them is, and that it is you!

Also, I don't have a "usual style." I am an unpredictable loose cannon.

Turnip Head wrote: I don't want to be talking about lynching me.

Well, I do.

$55 for the rob

I'm placing my vote on TH for now, just in case.

S~V~S wrote:
bea wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Points to bea for posting 11 times in a row.

$10 on rob.
what - I'm just trying to catsup as fast as I can - and this vote ends sat?? fuck's sake. I'll keep doing my best to keep reading
Not sure why you had to shut her down

I see that I was misunderstood. The word "points" in my post was meant to convey the concept of awarding points for an achievement. "You win! Point to you!"

I did not mean "indicating with the index finger in an accusatory manner."

I apologize for the miscommunication.

The case on Boogs is good.

I think Turnip head is bad, though.

BWT flips bad, I suggest looking at the people who voted for him late in the day.

thellama73 wrote:Now, who is BWT's partner? I would guess someone who voted for him after his lynch became inevitable, after Spacedaisy at least. Maybe Turnip Head of Splintsy-Splints.

Turnip Head singles out Daisy, even though the timing of her vote makes no sense for a teammate. ALso helps that she is not around to defend herself.

Turnip Head wrote:I still feel that this is the sketchiest vote all day, and BWT flipping utility makes it even sketchier to me:

Spacedaisy wrote:I give up. I don't have time to catch up. I honestly don't even know the mechanics of this game. I'm going to roll with a BWT vote.
She hadn't even read the thread. Still managed to vote for BWT.

When I point out this makes no sense, he claims that BWT's lynch was inevitable when he only had four votes. Really?

Turnip Head wrote:I don't think there was a big chance to save BWT yesterday... I felt his lynch was inevitable, like FZ's. Maybe if Metalmarsh had garnered more votes it would have been closer. But it was LC who had the most non-BWT votes, and there was a lot of hesitation to lynch him yesterday.

Whether she's civvie or baddie, Daisy's vote stands out, and needs to be explained.

He pushes this idea for a few posts, when nobody bites, he changes the subject.

Turnip Head wrote:We would need to cross reference all of BWT's suspicions with the players that we know landed on a Utility square (and got rolechecked)

He then pleads a frame-up.

Turnip Head wrote:Looking back at BWT's posts, it seems he killed Black Rock in an attempt to set me up

Other than that he didn't mention suspicion of many players outside of Boogs and Llama, neither of which have been checked by the uties.

Then Epig makes an admittedly elegant case on Boogs. TH immediately agrees.

Turnip Head wrote:I can dig it Epi. Boogs can have his turn in the hot seat. The interaction between him and BWT is weird.

I call him out on changing the subject, as a late BWT voter. He responds.

Turnip Head wrote:I've been a late voter every lynch, and expect the trend to continue.

I was the first person to agree with Epi's original case on BWT, so there's that.

$10 Electric Company

This rather misses the point. It is not the fact that he voted late, but that he voted late for BWT specifically, that is consistent with what a teammate would do.

He bid on Electric Company, although he screwed it up, and his vote gave him a $200 boost. Water Works has the most incentive to bid on Electric Company.

Turnip Head wrote:Well I meant to outbid Boogs on Electric Company but my dumbass didn't increase the bid to $11. So boogs has Electric Company.

Overall, his tone sounds to me like someone who is desperately trying to change the subject to anybody but him. I refuse to let the subject be changed.

Turnip Head wrote:Well I meant to outbid Boogs on Electric Company but my dumbass didn't increase the bid to $11. So boogs has Electric Company.

fingersplints wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Points to bea for posting 11 times in a row.

$10 on rob.
$25 on rob

$30 on rob.

Boogs wrote:Also one last comment: The lame spreadsheet thing Epignosis said: Why would i publically announce my spreadsheet with BwT if he were my teammate to help everyone? I'm not bad nor his teammate and I am Civ.

But Turnip Head isn't.

Points to bea for posting 11 times in a row.

$10 on rob.

Turnip Head wrote:I can dig it Epi. Boogs can have his turn in the hot seat. The interaction between him and BWT is weird.

You seem awfully eager to get the spotlight on someone else, Mr. Late BWT Voter.

Turnip Head wrote:Players the Utilities knew the roles of before BWT died:

Elohcin (now BR2.0)
Lorab
TH
Daisy
FZ
Keys
Hedgeowl

And remember that utilities can land on their own property, so this doesn't rule any of these people out as electric company.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Also, voting WITH your partner who's about to be lynched is suicide... I know it's happened before but that doesn't mean it's a viable strategy...
BWT's vote on LC was the final one, so that specific scenario doesn't really matter.

But he could have voted alongside his partner? That leaves keys, MP, and Boogs. Or there is the possibility he voted his partner. Or Rob's balls are as big as he claims and he threw his only partner under the bus.

Or it was the last person anyone would suspect... Dagobunny!

Turnip Head wrote: Whether she's civvie or baddie, Daisy's vote stands out, and needs to be explained.

On this, we can agree.

Turnip Head wrote:Llama, especially because that.

Daisy needs to address why she voted for BWT. She didn't give a reason - and if she didn't read the thread, then she can't have a very good one.

Unless voting BWT would distance herself from her teammate, of course.

Distancing is a possibility, but at that point it was far from clear that BWT would be lynched. She would have had to intentionally get him killed for cred even when there was a big chance to save him. I get the impression that Daisy really hasn't been keeping up with the game, and it seems an odd move for someone who's barely playing.

Turnip Head wrote:I still feel that this is the sketchiest vote all day, and BWT flipping utility makes it even sketchier to me:

Spacedaisy wrote:I give up. I don't have time to catch up. I honestly don't even know the mechanics of this game. I'm going to roll with a BWT vote.
She hadn't even read the thread. Still managed to vote for BWT.

Even though her vote would have tied BWT with LC? I just don't see a teammate doing that.

fingersplints wrote:can't votes be changed though? So I teammate could always vote early and change it if need be

Yes, but given how this game encourages bandwagonry, I doubt that people would be likely to do that.

fingersplints wrote:
Hedgeowl wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
fingersplints wrote:why not hedgeowl? I don't mind being looked at because I don't have anything to hide, but I don't think your logic there makes sense. When did the lynch become inevitable? How come someone who admittedly isn't reading and just happened to vote a baddie gets a free pass from you? bwt seemed to resign himself to being lynched much earlier in the day, so it's just as likely his partner did too. Or maybe his partner isn't even around and that's why he seemed to give up so early.

bye Elo welcome back BR

linki

I neflected to put Hedgeowl into my post, although I meant to. Yes, she should definitely be looked at as well. Good point.
Does neflected = deflected+neglected?

Splints- how I am admittedly not reading? I thought I was admittedly reading...
That was the cutoff because at that point BWT and Long Con had the same number of votes (5) and I don't see a teammate voting for him that early.

Not you. SD said she wasn't going to catch up. So I'm curious how that became the cut off

fingersplints wrote:why not hedgeowl? I don't mind being looked at because I don't have anything to hide, but I don't think your logic there makes sense. When did the lynch become inevitable? How come someone who admittedly isn't reading and just happened to vote a baddie gets a free pass from you? bwt seemed to resign himself to being lynched much earlier in the day, so it's just as likely his partner did too. Or maybe his partner isn't even around and that's why he seemed to give up so early.

bye Elo welcome back BR

linki

I neflected to put Hedgeowl into my post, although I meant to. Yes, she should definitely be looked at as well. Good point.

Now, who is BWT's partner? I would guess someone who voted for him after his lynch became inevitable, after Spacedaisy at least. Maybe Turnip Head of Splintsy-Splints.

Hahahahaha, we are nailing this game.

Long Con wrote:Switching my vote now to birdwithteeth, to gain access to the $200 bidding bonus on his property, and to widen the gap between him and myself.

Do you think he's a railroad?

Hedgeowl wrote: Not sure who I will vote yet

You've only got 95 minutes to decide, you know.

S~V~S wrote:It certainly would not be the low posters.

Aren't they just the worst?

Long Con wrote:
thellama73 wrote:In fact, why don't I just play all the roles.
If you played all the roles, would the Civvies or Baddies win?

The baddies, obviously.

In fact, why don't I just play all the roles.

boo wrote:In need of another replacement, if anyone is interested please let me know. Thanks.

I'll play a second role, if you like.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Fair enough, I'll consider this. Thanks for responding. Can I ask why you are just saying things though?

Thank you. All I ask is that you think things through instead of acting rashly. In answer to your question, there are two reasons.
1) It amuses me.
2) This is a big, complex game taking place during a month where free time is scarce for me. It was originally my intention to ride out the first few days without doing much in order to think the herd and have a more manageable group size. I have inadvertently gotten sucked in more than I intended to though.

The case making will pick up after there is more of a vote record and when there are fewer people to make consider.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Also, while I understand your point, the game of mafia is sometimes much more about deception than incentives. What incentive would you have had for gunning after your only civvie-appearing teammate ALL of American Gods? I could ask plenty of incentive questions not only to you but also myself and other players who have been baddies before and have defied the most straightforward cases of action.

Deception doesn't matter more than incentives. Deception is an incentive. That's like saying money matters more than incentives.

With regard to American Gods, I had multiple reasons for playing that the way I did. Mainly, I wanted to appear consistent (it kept me from getting lynched, didn't it?) I was confident that he was in no real danger of dying, I was confident that if he did die it would not be a game ending blow to my team, and it was really, really funny.

Also, it convinced SVS that I always throw teammates under the bus, even though that is literally the only time I have done it, so that is worth something. I can't speak for the others you mentioned, as I do not know the particulars, but I guarantee they had good reasons.

MovingPictures07 wrote: And so it seems you're basically NO U'ing me then, just like LC.

Nonsense. I'm not saying you're bad because you suspect me. I'm saying you're weird for suspecting me for such an obviously incorrect reason.

What contradictory evidence, you ask? Well you know me, I am all about incentives.

1. What incentive does baddie llama have to tie himself, needlessly and inextricably, to a teammate, knowing full well that if one of us goes down, the other will as well? Why not just stay quiet? It makes no sense, especially this early in the game.
2. What incentive does teammate llama have to spend valuable, precious money on a skill that would be f no use to me according to your theory? Why not bid on something else or not at all?
3. What incentive does baddie llama have to draw attention to himself by refusing to make real cases and just accusing people without backing it up? How does that help me or my alleged team?

None of this behavior makes sense as a baddie and you know it, but since you are wedded to your theory, you'll ignore the evidence and just shout WIFOM! even though that term is basically meaningless.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Why am I not allowed to strongly believe a certain set of beliefs but you are? You say "juliets is bad" but you didn't even give a reason, and you keep suspicion hopping. How is that any better than my suspicion?

I told you, I am not making cases this game. I am just saying things to see what happens.

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:SVS, what do you make of Alex this game? I think he is acting weird, but I don't know that weird = bad.
I think he's acting pretty much just like he acted at the beginning of Dr Who. This is how he acts now

I guess this is what happens to formerly logical accountants when they get engaged.

MovingPictures07 wrote:How am I acting weird, Llama? You said that before, and so has LC, but at least LC has given reasons, even if they are inaccurate.

You're acting weird by insisting I am bad in the face of all logic, and continuing to rationalize your suspicion when presented with contradictory evidence. It doesn't seem like you.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
juliets wrote:MP, what do you think about the fact that llama has bid for the double search (where you can send in two guesses for your partner instead of just one)? Why would he do that if he's got all his partners?
That's a good question, but you could ask the same question about why would anyone who has no or limited use for an item buy it? To keep it from other players.

I'm not sure that's why he's buying it, but it's at least an explanation if my assumptions are correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

SVS, what do you make of Alex this game? I think he is acting weird, but I don't know that weird = bad.

[quote="MovingPictures07"
No one has given me a better explanation for why Llama did a complete 180 on LC other than the fact that he: 1) gained BTSC with him and 2) thought he could get away with it. Which he totally is.
[/quote]

Did nobody read my Chesterton quote? I thought it summed my views up so nicely.

zeek wrote:Bed time for me. I'm going to vote Boogs.

While I initially thought he may have been onto something with LC and llama, I think LC has been genuine in his responses. The more I consider the way Boogs has gone about it, the more I think he's latched onto it to try to keep the civs weak.

I frequently lynch boogs when he is a civ because his impassioned arguments that make no sense strike me as baddie. I'm starting to think that's just the way he is.

zeek wrote:I don't know him, why even say it?

Why do people keep saying "why even say it?"

There's this new thing called communication.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Sorry, I won't have the free time to properly participate today that I thought I would.

I'm switching my vote to BWT because Epi's track record says he's right, and his case looks good.

I think I'll join you.

Also, TH. I like you.

Turnip Head wrote:So Llama you think BWT's a railroad?

Increasingly so. It's weird to me that I thought "I bet the railroads are someone with a middling post count and moderate participation" then looked at the player list, and his name jumped out at me, even before Epig said anything. The he made his case and I looked into it further and found that the pieces were there. This is what Jung called Synchronicity.

Why would he had bid ($180 is not a small amount of money for what we start out with) on a railroad?

Okay, I could be okay with a BWT lynch today. Here's why.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. Here's my full opinion on the two hot-button issues so far.

1) In terms of searching for people, I am going to try and search for my teammates every night. I know most of us play for fun (I would hope all of us do), but we also play to win the game. Having a team of people whom I know can help me, and help add to potential collected money in terms of hotels, sounds a heck of a lot more appealing than a vanilla civ with no powers and throwing darts in the dark. The utilities have already learned the roles of 3 players so far, and the railroads learn who each others is once they find each other. Plus having a NK they get to share. So to me, the best long-term strategy is to search for teammates.

2) I will consider bidding on properties, if one comes up that I feel is worth owning. The way I look at it, I'd rather get rid of the baddies first who either have BTSC already (Utilities) or could gain it (Railroads), and have a NK to use, over people who are vanilla civs and do not have a NK. And, as llama said, it's a huge opportunity cost we are throwing away by going after people who decide to bid often or heavily on properties. So for now, I'm more concerned about trying to find and kill baddies.

Linki @llama: I agree. There's a big difference between a mafia team and a LMS team in my opinion.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:W00t! Great job on getting a baddie on Day 1. That's awesome!

$180 on Short Line

So at first he is a bit ambivalent about bidding on properties. "maybe I will, IF"

Then he says "don't lynch people who bid on properties" (which I broadly agree with, but bear with me.)

Then he follows up a congratulations (that reads just a little bit fakey-fake to me) with a bid on Short Line.

Why would anyone who's not a railroad want a railroad? To prevent the other railroads from getting it? Maybe. But I don't think someone as ambivalent about property buying as BWT would play that way.

juliets wrote:Just in case someone is looking for a quick reply from me note that I have appointments this afternoon so will be out of the thread until this evening. On the subject of Boogs I think he is a misguided civ but not bad. I'm still contemplating the llama/LC baddie theory. I wish there was more hard evidence or what I consider hard evidence. I still have Metalmarsh in my eye but today I feel less likely to vote for him.

How did my Chesterton quote not persuade you?

I was looking at post counts yesterday and I did notice that BWT falls squarely into the "active but not too active" camp where I said baddies were likely to be hiding. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if he were among their number.

juliets wrote:But llama, this is for you: what made you change your mind about LC overnight? I think the whole theory lies in the answer to this question because it's what led you to believe LC and llama had bts.

There is no one thing. I can't quote posts and point to the thing that made me think he is good. It is everything. It is the totality of his game play after Day 1.

I think this can best be explained by the great G. K. Chesterton.

"It is very hard for a man to defend anything of which he is entirely convinced. It is comparatively easy when he is only partially convinced. He is partially convinced because he has found this or that proof of the thing, and he can expound it. But a man is not really convinced of a philosophic theory when he finds that something proves it. He is only really convinced when he finds that everything proves it. And the more converging reasons he finds pointing to this conviction, the more bewildered he is if asked suddenly to sum them up. Thus, if one asked an ordinary intelligent man, on the spur of the moment, "Why do you prefer civilization to savagery?" he would look wildly round at object after object, and would only be able to answer vaguely, "Why, there is that bookcase . . . and the coals in the coal-scuttle . . . and pianos . . . and policemen." The whole case for civilization is that the case for it is complex. It has done so many things. But that very multiplicity of proof which ought to make reply overwhelming makes reply impossible. "

MovingPictures07 wrote:You agree that juliets looks bad, but you don't expound on it. Then you vote Boogs.

That is an excellent summary of events as they occurred, in the order that they occurred.

Search found 176 matches